Why punish a player if they can't come to the game?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, I think what you're referring to are the "appropriate" EL levels based on group average level.

well, i dont use EL and Cr at all, so not really. What i am referring to are challenges which are appropriate as in they highlight pc capabilities (strengths and weaknesses) and provide opportunities for the PCs traits to show up.

If you run the game with every EL challenge from 1-20 as potential to your group, then the onus for character survival is given to the players rather than the DM.

i disagree wholly. if your as Gm "allow" (IE script) an encounter with a much more powerful adversary than your players can handle, then you OUGHT TO be making sure there are lots of needed elements in that script, not divorcing yourself from responsibility it. The "it can kill you in a blink of an eye" encounter, unlike the "its tough for you but not too tough" needs a lot more foreshadowing and very good scripting for things like PC exit routes, NPC motivations and distractions and potential run-ins if things get bad.

the "you turn the corner surprising me and see two orcs mugging a barmaid" doesn't need as much Gm scripting and control as the "you turn the corner surprising me and the demi lich decides you are good for supper" does.

IMO of course, but widening the scope of encounters requires IMO more weight on the Gm shoulders for the PCs survival, not less.

If you play under a DM who only uses EL ranges close to your group's average level, AND you are the lowest level character in that group, you do get the short end of the stick.

agreed. but i dont see how this changes if the encounter are even tougher?

I can see then why you would think having a lower level character is actually a punishment. I advise letting the players choose their challenges then. Rather than pre-scripted, always level "appropriate" DM ones.

so, what, the players populate the world with varmints and situations of their own choice?
they decide what is rading the village in the middle of the night?
they decide what mosnters haunt the tomb?
maybe they hand you cards with the monsters and scenarios they want to face and you draw randomly?
they write up a random encounter table and with a fee dice rolls the fight begins?

are you describing a Gm or a referee?

Or simply find another DM.

maybe its me, but i tend to place rules well behind people, so if i need to change a rule to help a person en joy or stay in the game, AND I CAN without hurting other things, I often do.

My motto as Gm is "say yes unless there is a compelling reason to say no".

so, "find another gm" or "kick the wuss from the table" and all those cutsey ob bbs popular catch phrases, don't really gain much purchase with me. the game is there and used to serve our entertainment, we aren't there to serve it.

 

[howandwhy99]

Second, systemically fixing it so "he's not behind forever" isn't solving the problem, merely limiting how long it lasts. if its "not fair" that "bob lags behind" its not fair that bob "lags behind for only a month or so." Now, if you figure it is fair that "bob lags behind" why then catch him back up?

I think, strictly looking at this point, the designers saw a weaker character overcoming a stronger relative challenge as deserving more experience. Hence a 6th level PC traveling with 7th level PCs earns more during every combat.

Hardcore, old-school DM's award the same XP to all characters. I don't think this works in D20.

 

[swrushing]

Its all about is lack of reward a punishment.

and the answer is.. IMO...

sometimes.

if the reward is neutral, as in it doesn't impact the unrewarded, then its not a punishment to not reward someone. The christmas bonus is an example of that.

if the reward is hostile, and it does in fact diminish the unrewarded, like the DND example against "challenges" scaled to party strength, then it is a punishment to not reward someone.

 

[DonTadow]

As mentioned a while back (lost in morass that is this thread, hehe), at the end of the game the players all vote for the best-RP in the game and that person gets a chit (we use blue glass stones) that can be turned in for XP or a re-roll. The RP awards are essentially given out by the players for the players (the DM doesn't get a vote, unless it's a tie), so issues of favoratism, and so on don't come up.

sidenote: Arravis do you use the glass stones that come with the n'vidia game.

 

[Mallus]

Awarding XP for merely showing up (and other inconsequential acts) weakens the importance of experience points as well.

Yup. And its a practice endorsed by the RAW.

For it all to be in-game is to remove any rule aspect of it.

Yup. It becomes the province of my dear friend, DM fiat...

However, all those posters advocating a rigorous meritocracy that awarded XP for specific player contributions --which had to be evaluated by the DM -- also took us outside the rules. The DMG can suggest to award RP bonuses. But it can't tell you when.

Levelling is no longer tied to player success.

Its not tied to individual player success. My party still gets xp for the sum of their actions.

This sounds like another personal preference though.

Yup. Never said otherwise

 

[swrushing]

I asked how other DMs recognized their Players' accomplishments besides XPs. For it all to be in-game is to remove any rule aspect of it. Levelling is no longer tied to player success. This sounds like another personal preference though.

they are rewarded in game by the results and reactions within the world. saving a village gets you both the personal happy of saving people but also praise etc. later on, the "hey, i heard about what you did for that village in the north..." can benefit you and IMG does when appropriate.

 

[swrushing]

I think, strictly looking at this point, the designers saw a weaker character overcoming a stronger relative challenge as deserving more experience. Hence a 6th level PC traveling with 7th level PCs earns more during every combat.

yet, in fact, as we discussed, its often not goin to be the weaker player overcoming a bigger challenge, is it? is the 9th level guy going to be the one in the 11th level party who fells the dragon or does "an even share"?

or is he gonne be the one buffed up more or kept further back while the guys for whom this is an appropriate challenge put themselves "up front" and bear the brunt of the effort?

The weaker guy is likely the one doing less, which is usually less enjoyable.

See from all the XP IS EANRED yar yar yar crowd i don;t get why "i got no xp last week for not showing but this week i show up and do less or even little but i now get MORE so i can catch back up" is the way things ought to be?

Hardcore, old-school DM's award the same XP to all characters. I don't think this works in D20.

A three year DND game, a 2 year stargate game (both d20), a pair of year long MnM (OGL) games tell me that it works just fine for d20. i don't "think" works, I have seen it work and know it works from direct experience. i have also seen the other way work sometimes and not work othertimes, again, from experience.

Have you considered trying "same xp" for a game for a year or two to see if your experience proves your hypothesis or disproves it?

 

[JustaPlayer]

You guys could just do what I do. Find a good excuse for the player's PC to get captured and killed. Seriously, I had one player who I didn't here from for a month and a half. We were playing every week at that time. He came to me another two months later and asked if he could play his character again. I told him I had used his character as a plot device.

 

[Grimstaff]

Did you read the post you quoted, cuz the answer is right there.

Maybe not, for some that might be too much to ask. So i will spell it out.

in the Job example, not giving bob a bonus isn't taking something from him. his regular money he already has doesn't become less valuable because joe and the others get a bonus. basically, the prices for things he wants to buy (the challenge difficult for his spending) doesn't rise because of their bonuses.

In contrast, in the DnD example, as the other players increase in level quicker means the challenges do go up, since challenges are scaled to APL. So, the "challenges" put against his "character cash" (his traits defined by level) go up because of the other player's bonuses.

Rasing his teammates levels and not his is a detriment to bob.
Giving his fellow coworkers bonus funds and not bob is not a detriment to bob.

See?
Clear?

Obviously you missed my post about making fun of people who use horrible, obtuse allegories to try and support their convoluted house rules.
Is it clear now?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Has anyone who gives out XP for players who aren't able to make it ever had anyone complain about it? I've never heard a single complaint, and these are all friends and people I know quite well. Friends who all tend to be brutally honest, hehe.

In my all time worst moment, I awarded XP to the player who got the kill. I'm surprised they let that go on as long as they did. My players who are still around from way back then still rib me about it occasionally.

I've never had anyone question giving out XP to those who miss a session. I've never even had a player think it was odd. They want the other PCs to be on equal terms as far as levels as much as possible.

Perhaps a better opposite to the Christmas Bonus analogy would be a standard of living raise given out to everyone but one employee. It's more than he was making, but its there so he can keep up with inflation. In this case, the raise is the XP and inflation is the increase in encounter EL.